Sleeping Monkey:This is more about cops exploiting the American People than it is dangerous drivers.http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2011/04/thc_blood_test_pot_crit ic _william_breathes_3_times_over_limit_sober.php

Yeah, there is no "real" test for MJ impairment, so they set a BS threshold.

"It's like shooting fish in a barrel," he said. "It hits the kids of color the hardest."

If you can afford a lawyer, you can fight the charges. But in all circumstances, testing THC levels is pretty meaningless. It just assures a continued stream of citizens being hauled into the justice system, to replace those lost due to decriminalization.

If we repealed ALL the political crimes at once, the cops would be at a complete loss, and the prisons would start losing money hand over fist.

Marcus Aurelius:Sleeping Monkey: This is more about cops exploiting the American People than it is dangerous drivers.http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2011/04/thc_blood_test_pot_crit ic _william_breathes_3_times_over_limit_sober.php

Yeah, there is no "real" test for MJ impairment, so they set a BS threshold.

"It's like shooting fish in a barrel," he said. "It hits the kids of color the hardest."

If you can afford a lawyer, you can fight the charges. But in all circumstances, testing THC levels is pretty meaningless. It just assures a continued stream of citizens being hauled into the justice system, to replace those lost due to decriminalization.

If we repealed ALL the political crimes at once, the cops would be at a complete loss, and the prisons would start losing money hand over fist.

The whole legalization thing didn't really start gaining ground until testing technology got better. Whether that makes it a money grab or a way to protect public safety is in the eye of the beholder I guess.

Marcus Aurelius:If you can afford a lawyer, you can fight the charges. But in all circumstances, testing THC levels is pretty meaningless. It just assures a continued stream of citizens being hauled into the justice system, to replace those lost due to decriminalization.

This. I don't even think you can get an accurate quantitative reading of a current THC level without a blood test.

Yeah. Found it. THC Testing is pretty much a sham.There is no national standard or evidenciary scientific standard for identifying an arbitrary limit for THC that correlates with behavioral impairment, unlike BAC.

hardinparamedic:Marcus Aurelius: If you can afford a lawyer, you can fight the charges. But in all circumstances, testing THC levels is pretty meaningless. It just assures a continued stream of citizens being hauled into the justice system, to replace those lost due to decriminalization.

This. I don't even think you can get an accurate quantitative reading of a current THC level without a blood test.

If you can afford a lawyer, you can fight the charges. But in all circumstances, testing THC levels is pretty meaningless. It just assures a continued stream of citizens being hauled into the justice system, to replace those lost due to decriminalization.

The whole legalization thing didn't really start gaining ground until testing technology got better. Whether that makes it a money grab or a way to protect public safety is in the eye of the beholder I guess.

America's prison industrial complex hard at work. You didn't think they would let the producers and sellers get rich without ensuring their cut of the pie did you?

Not necessarily. There's a reason why you don't get a conviction on a subjective test conducted by a non-medically trained police officer alone, anymore. You either blow or get poked. (Giggity) When dealing with alcohol, you get an objectively measurable level, which has historically correlated to impairment in stud Bies. No such studies back up an arbitrary blood D9 THC level in correlation to impairment.

To put it another way, I can pull you over, and in five minutes find an objective, legally defensible reason to give you a breathalyzer test if I wanted to. Were you just twitching your eyes, or was that horizontal nystagmus I saw? Blow or go to jail.

I'm all four identification and jailing of impared drivers, as well as taking their licenses. DUI kills too many people each year.But the methods used to do such should be scientifically defensible and totally objective.

Wait... so when marijuana was illegal, 1000 people per year tested positive for using while driving. (Driving while, presumably, using something that shouldn't have been in their system at all.)

Now that it's legal, 1/2 of 745 people (373) are found over the limit in six months. Projecting linearly, that's ~745 a year who are over the "legal" limit. Which is <1000.

Serious question: do they count people who blow a 0.03 as DUIs? Because this sounds more like a reporting and statistics issue than a public safety problem. Nobody was under the impression legalizing MJ would make use go down, for chrissakes.

Jument:Smoking pot in the car: EABOD and DIAF. Under the influence even a little while driving: vera vera bad. Smoked a joint yesterday: no problem.

That seems fairly common sense. Why don't we have common sense in this country anymore?

The problem stems from the testing methods. There is currently no single way to test for impairment except for subjective evaluation. That might be fine for obvious dickheads, but it leaves a significant gray area.

It also leaves a huge gulf in actual testing. Alcohol consumption, for instance, can leave high levels of acetate in the blood for more than four or five days following the last drink. Most drugs leave a compound in the body well after the last usage and tests usually check for those very compounds rather than the shiat that gets you high (or more appropriately - impaired).

The end result is you could be stone-sober and yet piss a vial full of acetate and therefore be considered "legally drunk."

Not necessarily. There's a reason why you don't get a conviction on a subjective test conducted by a non-medically trained police officer alone, anymore. You either blow or get poked. (Giggity) When dealing with alcohol, you get an objectively measurable level, which has historically correlated to impairment in stud Bies. No such studies back up an arbitrary blood D9 THC level in correlation to impairment.

To put it another way, I can pull you over, and in five minutes find an objective, legally defensible reason to give you a breathalyzer test if I wanted to. Were you just twitching your eyes, or was that horizontal nystagmus I saw? Blow or go to jail.

I'm all four identification and jailing of impared drivers, as well as taking their licenses. DUI kills too many people each year.But the methods used to do such should be scientifically defensible and totally objective.

You're not getting a DUI for pot based solely on the roadside sobriety test ('Walk The Line', Watch The Pen', etc).

You're getting the DUI on the blood test combined with the roadside test.

Trust me, I have some practical experience with how this works for alcohol.

dv-ous:Wait... so when marijuana was illegal, 1000 people per year tested positive for using while driving. (Driving while, presumably, using something that shouldn't have been in their system at all.)

Now that it's legal, 1/2 of 745 people (373) are found over the limit in six months. Projecting linearly, that's ~745 a year who are over the "legal" limit. Which is <1000.

Serious question: do they count people who blow a 0.03 as DUIs? Because this sounds more like a reporting and statistics issue than a public safety problem. Nobody was under the impression legalizing MJ would make use go down, for chrissakes.

Came here to say this. They also mention that there are 20,000 arrests for suspicion of DUI per year, which means 5% are testing positive for reefer and 2.5% are over the limit. Hardly a pandemic of stoned driving.

/almost stopped reading there//continued for a few sentences and laughed///better luck fear mongering next time, ya puritan freaks

The Christian Science Monitor has nothing to do with the Church of Christian Scientists - in fact, it's mission statement explicitly states that it will not be used to promote their views. It's actually one of the most respected news sources in the United States, and has a very notable habit of approaching topics neutrally and without bias and sensationalism.

hardinparamedic:The Christian Science Monitor has nothing to do with the Church of Christian Scientists - in fact, it's mission statement explicitly states that it will not be used to promote their views. It's actually one of the most respected news sources in the United States, and has a very notable habit of approaching topics neutrally and without bias and sensationalism.

Has there been a rash of dumb n00bs in the last week or so who don't know this or have I just not noticed them until now?

Meh, lots of handicapped drivers couldn't pass some of the road side tests, it doesn't mean they were legally impaired. Not sure I could pass some of the road side tests and I never drink and drive......nor do I smoke.

Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that it's the *metabolites* that stay in the body for weeks/months. Typical drug tests are looking for those. If there is THC in the blood then you are probably under the influence.

Although I believe there is evidence that driving stoned is nowhere near as bad as driving drunk, and I seem to recall some suggestion that stoned drivers can actually perform better than sober drivers.

bojon:It took years to come up with a DUI policy that could be enforced nationally. It will take years for pot, but it will happen.

The problem is that it took years, as well, to come up with a DUI Policy that would stand up to scientific and forensic scrutiny in court, and has been backed by peer reviewed research. If you look at Europe, for example, many countries there have a 0.01 BAC limit. They have zero tolerance for it.

This isn't the case with this. D9THC metabolites have up to a 11 day half life, and there is poor correlation between content in blood and behavioral impairment with current studies. This kind of thing would get tossed out of court by a person with a good lawyer. The problem is, who this law will target will most likely not be able to afford a good lawyer.

Calkins said that, in the first half of the year, the overall number of people pulled over by the State Patrol on suspicion of driving under the influence, whether of alcohol or drugs, remained roughly on par with figures from the last two years.

Could it be that legalizing marijuana will lower the number of alcohol DUI's? And given that many (most?) of the drug DUI's are probably not real, this could mean that the streets are now safer. Any chance of a story about that?

mazzz:Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that it's the *metabolites* that stay in the body for weeks/months. Typical drug tests are looking for those. If there is THC in the blood then you are probably under the influence.

UDS up to 5-10 days in most users, up to 30 in heavy users. Hair follicle test up to 3 months IIRC.

hardinparamedic:bojon: It took years to come up with a DUI policy that could be enforced nationally. It will take years for pot, but it will happen.

The problem is that it took years, as well, to come up with a DUI Policy that would stand up to scientific and forensic scrutiny in court, and has been backed by peer reviewed research. If you look at Europe, for example, many countries there have a 0.01 BAC limit. They have zero tolerance for it.

This isn't the case with this. D9THC metabolites have up to a 11 day half life, and there is poor correlation between content in blood and behavioral impairment with current studies. This kind of thing would get tossed out of court by a person with a good lawyer. The problem is, who this law will target will most likely not be able to afford a good lawyer.

You're missing the MOST IMPORTANT PART: Good lawyer or no, money will still be flowing through the justice system.So it's a second revenue stream.

mazzz:Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that it's the *metabolites* that stay in the body for weeks/months. Typical drug tests are looking for those. If there is THC in the blood then you are probably under the influence.

Although I believe there is evidence that driving stoned is nowhere near as bad as driving drunk, and I seem to recall some suggestion that stoned drivers can actually perform better than sober drivers.

mazzz:Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that it's the *metabolites* that stay in the body for weeks/months. Typical drug tests are looking for those. If there is THC in the blood then you are probably under the influence.

Although I believe there is evidence that driving stoned is nowhere near as bad as driving drunk, and I seem to recall some suggestion that stoned drivers can actually perform better than sober drivers.

Please, be a tiny bit more accurate, or go learn the science. It has been repressed for nearly a century, but has managed to advance anyway.There is more than just "THC" going on here. Basically, 3 different active compounds of interest, with different human affect.

The My Little Pony Killer:mazzz: Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that it's the *metabolites* that stay in the body for weeks/months. Typical drug tests are looking for those. If there is THC in the blood then you are probably under the influence.

Although I believe there is evidence that driving stoned is nowhere near as bad as driving drunk, and I seem to recall some suggestion that stoned drivers can actually perform better than sober drivers.

Yup. What they discovered was that when people get stoned enough for it to affect their driving, they know they don't want to be on the roads anyway.

Which is somewhat different, imagine that, from the alcohol bulletproof stupor.

Calkins said that, in the first half of the year, the overall number of people pulled over by the State Patrol on suspicion of driving under the influence, whether of alcohol or drugs, remained roughly on par with figures from the last two years.

Could it be that legalizing marijuana will lower the number of alcohol DUI's? And given that many (most?) of the drug DUI's are probably not real, this could mean that the streets are now safer. Any chance of a story about that?

The militarized police of today rely on that DUI income.They cannot exist if taken away and not replaced.

Posted because:(1). Might see an interesting argument here, though I've probably heard the pro and anti-pot arguments trillions of times.(2). Maybe this here panda got a contact buzz from the thread and decided bamboo just ain't gonna quench those munchies.